Search WJE Online The Jonathan Edwards Center at Yale University 5. The Inherited Sermon Form That Edwards accepted the traditional sermon form is undoubtedly in part due to his essentially conservative outlook. But he also had some sound practical reasons for relying upon the basic structure and general rationale of the seventeenth-century Puritan sermon. Before considering Edwards' use of the inherited sermon form, however, it is important to note briefly the sermon in its original form. Modern scholarly studies of the seventeenth-century Puritan sermon -- 28 -- have pointed out that the form evolved through many hands and was always subject to individual variations. Consequently, major works on sermon theory were generally efforts to codify current practices rather than to present new concepts. A few books, however, became accepted as "authorities" for generations of student-preachers, and one of the most popular among them was John Wilkins' Ecclesiastes, Or, A Discourse Concerning the Gift of Preaching as it falls under the Rules of Art (London, 1646). This little book had gone through six printings by 1679, and in 1705 John Edwards recommended it in The Preacher. Ecclesiastes is a book to warm the heart of a Ramist, for it dichotomizes and distributes all things into their proper categories. Thus, it is not only clear in its exposition of the sermon form, but it gives a vivid impression of the mentality which gave birth to the classical Puritan sermon. The form of this sermon is, according to Wilkins, tripartite on the primary level; it consists of three "chief parts" or divisions: Explication. Confirmation. Application. Wilkins subdivides each of these divisions by the Ramistic method of analysis. First the Explication: Second the Confirmation: And finally, the Application: -- 29 -- -- 30 -- -- 31 --
These schemes of the sermon's formal structure,from the second edition of Ecclesiastes (London, 1647), pp. 5 7. though they appear to be as involved as the work of the "school-men," do in fact provide formal outlines of the sermon structure used by Edwards. Of course, -- 32 -- it is a "loosened" structure in Edwards' sermons, for he no longer attaches much significance to the Ramistic logic which informs it, but there is more than a mere family resemblance between the form used by Edwards and that depicted by Wilkins, and a modern reader must respect
the formal requirements of the sermon in much the same way as he might those of the ballad or even the sonnet if he is to appreciate what is going on in it. In discussing the schemes, Wilkins argues that a sermon constructed on this plan not only helps the preacher to control his material, but also helps the hearers, who may understand and retain a Sermon with greater ease and profit, when they are before-hand acquainted with the generall heads of matter that are discoursed of. An immethodicall discourse (though the materials of it may be precious) is but as a heap, full of confusion and deformity; the other, as a Fabrick or building, much more excellent both for beauty and use.ibid., p. 4. Edwards would seem to agree; moreover, his congregation had listened to this style of sermon for years, and their minds moved in grooves dictated by the form. If he were to follow Christ's example and adapt his teachings to the capacities of his hearers, should not he preach in a form that they had long since grown accustomed to? Edwards preached, therefore, in the traditional way, dividing his sermons into Text, Doctrine, and Application.I have concluded that "Text" is the most accurate term for the first section of the sermon, since it invariably begins with the reading of a Scripture text and there is frequently no explication (see the bottom half of Wilkins' first scheme) if the text appears clear enough without it. When JE does refer to textual explication, he usually calls it the "Opening of the Text." "Doctrine" and "Application" are JE's customary terms for the second and third major divisions of the sermon. He also gave ample introductory and transitional statements, informing his auditory where the argument would go (at the beginning of each major head, but most comprehensively at the beginning of the Doctrine), where it was (at various points of division between heads, but especially at the start of the separate preaching unitsthe phrase "preaching unit" is a modern technical term used to identify the amount of material JE would normally preach during one session in the pulpit, since he often composed sermons requiring two or more preaching sessions to complete. of a sermon delivered over two or more services), and where it had been (at the ends of the major -- 33 -- divisions). Indeed, an abstract of a typical Edwards sermon manuscript, preserving only the formal outline and the transitional material sounds not a little like Wilkins. Here is a sample Doctrine: Doctrine Under this doctrine I would show: First, wherein this preparing of the heart consists, and secondly, give the reasons of the doctrine. I. Preparedness consists. 1. Ready to enjoy. 2. Ready to acknowledge. 3. Ready to make good improvement. Preparedness for a mercy sought. 1. 2. [the above heads expanded] 3. In these things it is that the preparedness of the heart for mercies sought consists. Now this preparation is wrought two ways: legally and evangelically. [1.] A legal preparation. 2. There is an evangelical preparation. [It] consists chiefly in four things, viz., humility and faith, love and spiritual appetite. [1.] Humility. 2. Faith. 3. Love. 4. Holy appetite. I proceed now: II. Briefly to give the reasons of the doctrine and there are two reasons viz., to secure his own glory, and to promote their good 1. His own glory. 2. Their good. An attentive and experienced auditor should have had no difficulty following Edwards through the Doctrine of Psalms 10:17 (1735), or for that matter, through the Text and Application which are prepared with equal attention to outline and transitions. The modern reader of Edwards' sermons may have to be reminded that, when the members of Edwards' congregation were not carried away by the emotional tides of the relatively rare awakening experience, many were busy taking sermon notes. Thus, a significant part -- 34 -- of the appeal of the sermon form presumably lay in its facilitating the organizing of material in sermon notes. There is, in fact, a rare example of sermon notes for an extant manuscript sermon which vividly illustrates how well preacher and congregation kept together, largely because of the conventions of the sermon's form. On September 25, 1727, Edwards preached the first section of a long (three preaching units) sermon on Isaiah 1:18 20. In the auditory sat a note-taker, possibly "Uncle" Joseph Hawley, with his little octavo quire of notes from several sermons by Edwards, Stoddard, and Thomas Hawley. On a blank leaf he took down the heads and some material that apparently struck him as important from within heads, as Edwards preached the sermon. Below, I have reproduced the notes in their entirety (so far as quoted), while abstracting from the full text of the
sermon manuscript those parts of the sermon that correspond to the notes. NOTES SERMON Isaiah 1:18 20, by Mr. Edwards. Isaiah 1:18 20. Doctrine is that all God's methods of dealing with man are most reasonable. Doctrine. That all God's methods of dealing with men are most reasonable. 1. God is most reasonable in decreeing & permitting sin. I. God is most reasonable in his decreeing and permit ting sin 1. God is no ways obliged to afford that grace & influence which would 1. God is no ways obliged to afford his creature such grace and influence as shall prevent sin in the creature. render it impossible for him to sin 2. God may order that a thing shall be done so or that it is impossible but that it come to pass & yet not himself force the doing of it; the decrees of God have no necessity of compulsion in them. -- 35 -- 3. If it were not reasonable that God should permit sin God would not be to be feared. 4. If God were obliged never to permit sin there would be no reason to be thankful to God for preserving us from sin. 1. [Use]. Hence we learn that sinners are inexcusable in their sins they have none to blame but themselves the original of it being in their own hearts therefore acknowledge it now & cast not the blame on God. 2. God may order that a thing shall certainly be done, so that it is impossible but that the thing should come to pass, and yet not force the doing [middle of head] so that God's making of it necessary that the thing should so fall out don't in the least stand in the way of our liberty; necessity may be distinguished into necessity or compulsion 3. If it were not reasonable that God should permit sin, God would not be to be feared; there would be not foundation for any such thing as the fear of God 4. If God were obliged never to permit sin, there would be no reason to thank God for preserving of us from sin APPLICATION We shall make a reflection or two upon this head by way of application 1. Hence we learn that sinners are inexcusable in their sins [middle of head] wherefore, acknowledge your own inexcusableness now, and own that you only are to blame; don't complain of God for that for which he justly complains of you, and may justly condemn you. Hand in hand, as it were, preacher and note-taker progress through Doctrine and Application. Only about half the sermon notes are reproduced above there being another doctrinal proposition and the "Improvement of the Whole" to go but the point has been demonstrated: by using the traditional sermon form, Edwards enabled his rustic congregation to assimilate and sometimes record theological arguments that might be vastly more difficult to follow or re-constitute from a "free-style" essay-sermon. In the case of this sermon, the notetaker did not miss a single numbered head in Doctrine or Application, and he took down several significant passages from within -- 36 -- heads. (He did not record Edwards' Opening of the Text, apparently considering that preliminary matter.) Thus, several factors may have contributed to Edwards' adherence to the traditional sermon form, but perhaps one of his strongest reasons was a purely practical inclination to use the form that worked. The rationalists, according to Solomon Stoddard, might put their thin moralizing in modish, simplified packages, but auditors of substantial theological arguments needed all the structural support they could get.